Talk:Baldwin I of Jerusalem
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on December 25, 2008 and December 25, 2009.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Baldwin I of Jerusalem was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Delisted version: August 9, 2006
I couldn't help but notice that the article makes the traditional claim that the expeditions Tancred and Baldwin made into the area around Edessa and Cilicia were, basically, land grabs. This is a little unfair to both leaders. Although this is a conclusion which is easy to reach fromt he 'mainstream' sources for the First Crusade, sources such as Albert of Aachen shed a much clearer light on these expeditions. Their aim was basically to establish friendly relations with the Christians in the area, and to provide foraging ground for an army whose leaders knew it would soon be facing hard times. Certainly, Bohemund and Tancred's Norman contingent made use of the friendly relations that the Cilician campaign had created, and the army of Godfrey of Bouillon made use of the fact that Godfrey's brother had become the prince of Edessa.
Can anyone else see the edit I just made to this article? I can see all the previous ones, but my last one just shows up as a blank screen for me... Adam Bishop 19:05, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Hmm...nevermind, it works now...that was odd. Adam Bishop 20:02, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
" the same politics that motivated Tancred" This needs to be expanded so we can follow the thought. Wetman 08:12, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, actually, this whole article just needs to be rewritten, since it is basically the 1911 EB article at the moment. I think I will do that, as soon as I can. Adam Bishop 19:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Any better now? I reworded some parts and added some more info. Adam Bishop 01:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
relation with his successor
contrary to some unfounded beliefs, Baldwin II was not a brother of Baldwin I. Sources state very clearly that at death of Baldwin I, his only remaining brother, count Eustace III of Boulogne was offered the royal crown - but he never arrived to obtain it. Baldwin II was the closest relative of Baldwin I present in Syria-Palestine at that time, and he received finally the vacant crown. (Already the fact that both guys were "Baldwin" should remind anyone that they should not be thought as brothers, as very usually brothers do not share the only first name.) 22.214.171.124 06:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Who ever said they were brothers? Adam Bishop 14:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
This article casually calls Godric and english pirate, but the article on Godric doesn't mention anything about pirating or even sailing. Which one is correct?
- The Godric article says he was "a pedlar, then a sailor and entrepreneur, and may have been the captain and owner of the ship that conveyed Baldwin I of Jerusalem to Jaffa. in 1102. After years at sea..." Perhaps pirate is a bit of a stretch, but what else can "sea-going entrepreneur" mean? :) Adam Bishop 18:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Albert of Aachen specifically mentions that Godric was a pirate, i believe.
This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Although references are provided, the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 13:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Shouldnt Sigurd Jorsalfare be listed in this article as he helped Baldwin and can be considered a powerful ally?
- He is already mentioned. Adam Bishop 16:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Runciman does say his children died with Godvera at Marash, but I suspect this is another case where Runciman was making stuff up. Or it is a poorly edited sentence; it looks fine if you take out the part about the children. No one else mentions any children. Fulcher for some reason doesn't mention Godvera at all, although that was the first place I thought to look. Albert of Aix and William of Tyre (probably based on Albert) don't say anything either. Du Cange's Les Familles d'Outremer specifically says he had no children with any of his wives. The homosexuality thing comes from Hans Mayer, I think; I'll have to look that up again. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- @ homosexuality - my question is whether it is based on some contemporary accounts or simply modern interpretation "he did not have any children so he must have been homosexual". If the latter one, I think it should not be included in the article as unfounded speculation. Current citiation from William of Tyre does not support it CarlosPn (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)